Why did last Euston to Manchester train skip Nuneaton yesterday?

[MKB]

"... On the 22.03 Euston to Manchester train and was due to get off at Nuneaton. Apparently we couldn’t due to safety reasons?? ..."

https://x.com/angela_whelan/status/1990929326716694676?t=k7EYyhf-tFsMXnnAhxdaIQ&s=19

Last night's 22:03 Euston to Manchester Avanti service passed through Nuneaton (9 minutes early) without its scheduled stop, with passengers having to be put in post-midnight taxis back from Stoke on Trent to a deserted Nuneaton station, from where they were expected to fend for themselves, the waiting taxis having long gone.

It seems Avanti is unable to offer an explanation beyond "safety reasons". It is also unexplained why this was not known at the previous stop of Rugby, from where cheaper and more convenient onward travel could have been organised.

Does anyone have any insight as to what this "safety" issue was?

 

[jfollows]

There used to be an issue because the station was closed, maybe that was the reason yesterday?

 

[MKB]

That was the issue when Virgin unsuccessfully tried to stop their 23:00 Manchester service at Nuneaton, but, if there were no staff last night, that doesn't explain why Nuneaton passengers were not offloaded at Rugby.

 

[CyrusWuff]

Given only one Manchester service an hour usually stops at Nuneaton, it's possibly a case of the Driver misreading their schedule card and realising too late to be able to stop safely.

 

[MKB]

Given only one Manchester service an hour usually stops at Nuneaton, it's possibly a case of the Driver misreading their schedule card and realising too late to be able to stop safely.

That could be it, but it would be disingenous to cite "safety" as the cause, rather than driver error.

 

[Benjwri]

That was the issue when Virgin unsuccessfully tried to stop their 23:00 Manchester service at Nuneaton, but, if there were no staff last night, that doesn't explain why Nuneaton passengers were not offloaded at Rugby.

Must have been staff there as the 1A84 Manchester to Euston arriving 10 minutes later stopped.

 

[Haywain]

That could be it, but it would be disingenous to cite "safety" as the cause, rather than driver error.

It's safer to go past than to attempt an emergency stop.

 

[MKB]

It's safer to go past than to attempt an emergency stop.

The driver error happens first. Safety is the reason for not correcting the error. If -- a big if -- this is indeed what happened, and Avanti were being transparent, driver error should be cited as the cause.

 

[Haywain]

The driver error happens first. Safety is the reason for not correcting the error. If -- a big if -- this is indeed what happened, and Avanti were being transparent, driver error should be cited as the cause.

I wouldn't expect any TOC to hang a driver out to dry in these circumstances, therefore safety is the appropriate reason to use for public consumption. The driver can be dealt with internally after the matter has been properly investigated.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I wouldn't expect any TOC to hang a driver out to dry in these circumstances, therefore safety is the appropriate reason to use for public consumption. The driver can be dealt with internally after the matter has been properly investigated.

I similarly wouldn't expect them to specifically name the driver as at fault (because there may have been other factors; a proper investigation has to be carried out before apportioning any blame, and I'm sure it will be), but "safety" is a bit disingenuous, a bit like the spurious use of "security reasons" for anything bad in an airport. If it was a fail-to-call, then "an operating incident" is surely what this sort of thing would normally be described as.

There wasn't some sort of platform issue, was there, e.g. no lighting or damage to that platform?